Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Knowledgeable personal injury lawyers in Baltimore are familiar with the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. There is no separate claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress, but how someone's negligence effects another's psyche is an element of the damages assessed in a negligence action, e.g. a typical Baltimore automobile accident. The seasoned personal injury lawyer in Baltimore knows that intentional infliction of emotional distress is notoriously difficult to prove. The conduct of the defendant must be "outrageous", "opprobrious", "beyond all bounds of possible decency" and "utterly intolerable in a civilized community". KFC v. Weathersby, 607 A.2d 8.
Wednesday, November 23, 2011
Employers must employ "fit" employees. Henley v. PGCo., 503 A.2d 1333. Knowledgeable personal injury lawyers in Baltimore are aware that en employer has an affirmative obligation refuse to employ those who may put their customers "at risk" or injury. A plaintiff injured by an employee, who wants to recover from that persons employer must show 1] the employee was incompetent and this incompetence put customers at foreseeable risk, 2] that the employer knew, or should have known, or the incompetence 3] the employee did something that injured the customer, and 4] which the seasoned personal injury lawyer in Baltimore recognizes as the most difficult hurdle, show that the hiring was the "proximate cause of the injury" [MPJI 19:4]. There must be a "nexus" between the negligent hiring and the subsequent harmful act. Henely. The courts look to whether the harm was "foreseeable" with respect to the type of harm, and the identity of the plaintiff.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
WHAT IS THE VALUE OF MY BALTIMORE PERSONAL INJURY CASE? Is there a parent-child loss of consortium claim?
Unlike the claims that a spouse can bring for the loss of "society and companionship" when the other spouse sustains personal injury, experienced personal injury lawyers in Baltimore advise their clients that no similar claim exists between parent and child. A child may not sue a negligent third party who causes personal injury to that child's parent, for the loss of that parent's affection and companionship. Gaver v. Harrant 557 A.2d 210. Knowledgeable personal injury lawyers in Baltimore are also aware a parent has no right to sue a third party for negligently inflicted personalinjury to a child for loss of that child's society and companionship. Michaels v. Nemethvargo, 571 A.2d 850.
Friday, November 18, 2011
In a prior chapter, we discussed that biological parents typically enjoy immunity from the tort claims of their children. The seasoned personal injury lawyer in Baltimore knows of the exceptions, for malicious and wanton, cruel or inhuman acts, and for motor torts [after 2001]. Knowledgeable personal injury lawyers in Baltimore are aware that this immunity does not extend to tort claims against step-parents. So, yes, you can sue your step-mom.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Knowledgeable personal injury lawyers in Baltimore are familiar with the rule in some jurisdictions "[t] hat young children habitually frequent the vicinity of a defective structure or dangerous agency existing on the land, which is likely to cause injury to them because they, by reason of their immaturity, are incapable of appreciating the risk involved, and where the expense or inconvenience of remedying the condition is slight compared to the risk to the children. In such cases there is a duty upon the owner or other person in possession and control of the premises to exercise due care to remedy the condition or otherwise." Corcoran v. Village of Libertyville, 73 Ill.2d 316, 383 N.E.2d 177 (Ill., 1978). The knowledgeable personal injury lawyer in Baltimore also knows that Maryland has "long rejected" this principle.
Friday, November 11, 2011
Personal injury lawyers in Baltimore have won cases by demonstrating that the brakes on the defendant's car "failed". It's interesting, as some people think that "brake failure" is an excuse that would relieve them of responsibility for causing an accident. To the contrary, sudden brake failure actually creates the presumption of negligence on the part of the owner. It is then up to that owner to present proof that he or she had her car properly maintained, and that there was no reason to expect failure. Miller v. Reilly, 319 A.2d 553. Seasoned personal injury lawyers in Baltimore know that a non-owner operator can satisfy his or her obligation of due car by making sure the brakes work prior to driving the vehicle.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Personal injury lawyers in Baltimore have used this theory to recover damages from the owner, as opposed to the driver, of a car that causes an accident. The owner of a car may be held responsible if they lend their car to another, and they have reason to believe that person will be "reckless" "incompetent" or "dangerous". [Maryland Civil Pattern Jury Instructions 18:5] Personal injury lawyers in Baltimore have successfully argued that allowing another to use a car is negligent where; the driver was inexperienced; the driver abused alcohol or drugs; the driver had a lot of tickets, or caused a lot of accidents; or was "uninsurable". [MPJI, supra].
Friday, November 4, 2011
No these are not people who demonstrate a lack of due care for a living. But, personal injury lawyers in Baltimore over the years have brought claims against pharmacists, engineers, banking and investment counselor, and accountants, as well as other Baltimore injury lawyers, alleging that those individuals were negligent in the provision of professional services. Those cases are proven where is shown that professional failed to use the same degree of skill and care that a reasonably competent professional, confronted with similar circumstances would use, and damages ensue. [MPJI 27:7] Of course, contributory negligence principles apply. A person may not blindly rely on the advice of professional and disregard their own obligation to act responsibly. Wegand v. Howard Jewlers, 326 MD. 409.